CPZ: Outcome - Roads to be Included

[Reg Adams]

The headlines are that the following roads will be included in the CPZ: Blandford Road (1-83 & 2-84); Cedars Road; Chaffinch Road; ClockHouse Road (to the Hampden Road junction); Elm Road; Queens Road; Rowden Road; Sidney Road; and ThayersFarm Road.

The following roads will be excluded from the CPZ: Acacia Road, Beckenham Road, Belmont Road, Betts Close, Blandford Avenue, Churchfields Road, Croydon Road, Durban Road, Gowland Place, Hampden Avenue, Hampden Road, Hayne Road, Kendall Avenue, Kendall Road, Malory Close, Westfield Road and YewTree Road.

There were about 760 valid votes cast in response to Bromley Council's recent consultation survey on a Controlled Parking Zone in this area. Overall, that represents a turn-out in excess of 50%. Based on the votes, the territory for the CPZ to be introduced has been defined. Where the majority of residents in a particular road voted in favour of a CPZ, that road will be included within the designated CPZ. The converse applies in those roads where the majority of respondents voted against having a CPZ in their road. The scope of the CPZ scheme will be reviewed six months after its introduction. During the review, residents and businesses in roads within the designated CPZ will be invited to comment on the extent to which the CPZ has achieved the outcomes they anticipated. Also by the time the review takes place, residents and businesses will have had time to assess the possible knock-on effects from parking displaced from roads within the CPZ.

A letter is being circulated to all residents within the original consultation area, providing further details. The next stage will be formal approval of the CPZ scheme at a future PortfolioHolder's Meeting (probably 26 Nov 2008 or 15 Jan 2009). These Meetings, like most Council Meetings, are held at The Civic Centre and the public is warmly invited to attend.

Many thanks to everyone who voted. It's good to know that Democracy is alive and well here.

[Reg Adams]

Hi Marie,
Many thanks for letting me know. When I investigated, I was assured that the "results letter" (dated 31 October) had been delivered to all houses and flats in the original CPZ consultation area by the end of Sunday 2 November. But I was also reminded that the original consultation area only included part of Hampden Road - don't ask me why! - that part between ClockHouse Road and the Hampden Avenue junction, i.e. Nos.1-11 & 2-16 Hampden Road. So, the deliverers only delivered the original consultation letter and the latest "results letter" to those addresses. Anyway, I have run off photocopies and delivered them to your part of Hampden Road. The outcome for Hampden Road - and for Hampden Avenue - was that the majority of respondents voted for exclusion from the CPZ.
Kind Regards, REG
PS: Equally happy to pass on a copy of the "results letter" to anyone else who needs one. Or maybe someone wiser than me could upload a *.PDF to this website?

[marie shallcross]

thanks for your time & effort!
I am very curious as to why Hampden road was broken up like this - luckily neighbours talk to each other so the word was passed on, but we are as affected by non residential parking as the other half and it woud have been preferable for LBB to keep us informed!
on a personal note, we also have an interest in hampden avenue as we rent a garage there and are obviously affected by parking issues/ blocking of access - yet obviously none of the garage renters recieved a CPZ unless they actually lived in the area - wouldnt it be logical to include such garage blocks?

Reg Adams said:

Hi Marie,
Many thanks for letting me know. When I investigated, I was assured that the "results letter" (dated 31 October) had been delivered to all houses and flats in the original CPZ consultation area by the end of Sunday 2 November. But I was also reminded that the original consultation area only included part of Hampden Road - don't ask me why! - that part between ClockHouse Road and the Hampden Avenue junction, i.e. Nos.1-11 & 2-16 Hampden Road. So, the deliverers only delivered the original consultation letter and the latest "results letter" to those addresses. Anyway, I have run off photocopies and delivered them to your part of Hampden Road. The outcome for Hampden Road - and for Hampden Avenue - was that the majority of respondents voted for exclusion from the CPZ.
Kind Regards, REG
PS: Equally happy to pass on a copy of the "results letter" to anyone else who needs one. Or maybe someone wiser than me could upload a *.PDF to this website?

[liz herring]

Jon Clarke said:

Sorry Tim , I totally disagree.

So it's okay to feel sorry for the roads just outside the CPZ is it? Did you feel sorry for them when ticking the Yes vote I'd like to know, knowing that if you got a CPZ you wouldn't be sharing the parking load anymore with what are still your neighbours and the local nighbourhood, but transfering the problem to them and not giving it a second thought, because this is what CPZ's do. As long as an 'I'm alright Jack' mentality exists then underhanded council tactics and setting up revenue generating solutions for them will continue. It's a better human principle to share I believe.

The erosion of freedom, even parking a car where you wish without having to pay for it, is all too easily given away.

The problem of parking isn't a neighbourhood one, it's a council one for they control what gets built, how many carparking spaces are required, and local planning needed to accomodate future trends, but hey when it all goes wrong they can fall back on the local residents, divide and rule and make a new rules and tax revenues so easily too.

[liz herring]

What about the erosion of freedom of the residents who have for years not been able to park outside their homes. At last the council are doing something about it.

[Niners]

I have to admit that the post from a commuter about a resident buying a house near a railway station and knowing what one is letting oneself in for is rather spot on. The space outside our houses, no matter how much we might like them to be are not ours. So everyone has the equal right of freedom to park there. To deny one to park there is a loss of freedom for the commuter and to have to pay for the privilege of being able to park in your own road is also a loss of freedom for the resident. The winner is the council who really doesn't care two hoots as long as it doesnt cost them anything, and indeed paid for parking zones, call them what you may, make a profit for them. And yet they are still not blamed for the ineffective planning that just makes the parking problem worse.

[Mark]

I agree 100% with Tim on this. Everyone had the opportunity in a wide area to vote on the introduction or otherwise of a CPZ. The problem of parking will obviously get forced onto neighbouring areas if they didnt vote in favour of a CPZ, like those roads closest to the station, hospital, Spa etc.

Like someone else said, it would have been better if the Council had made a blanket CPZ across a larger area, but they took a democratic approach and allowed residents to vote. What we now have is a situation where people dont like the results of the vote !! I personally cant wait for the CPZ to come in so that the traffic congestion in Queens Rd, Cedars etc eases. Commuters are turning up from 7am in the morning to at least 7pm at night - this doesnt give the residents or their visitors a chance to park and creates traffic chaos at peak times of the day which apart from anything else is dangerous

Many of these commuters are driving in from outside of the area to get free parking and cheaper Zone rail tickets. They should park in their own locality and catch a train earlier down the line, eg Elmers End, Eden Park - there is plenty of parking around these stations.

[IanOwens]

Reg,
As far as I am aware the results were not delivered to Malory Close

[Reg Adams]

Ian,

Thanks for letting me know. Copies of Paul Nevard's letter (31 October), with accompanying map, delivered to Malory Close this afternoon.

REG

[Sarah]

Can anyone give me an idea of where we are with the CPZ issue? Its just that the last I heard (prob back in Nov/Dec) was that this was going to be implemented. Since then, nothing - not a word.

I vaguely remember the mention of a Council Meeting being held and it going up for discussion/approval - who knows ...

However, since then - nothing.

Its May in a couple of weeks - we could have invaded a country in the time this has taken.

Thx
Sarah


Reg Adams said:

Ian,

Thanks for letting me know. Copies of Paul Nevard's letter (31 October), with accompanying map, delivered to Malory Close this afternoon.

REG

[Reg Adams]

Sarah asked for an update on the CPZ scheme. I have been told that letters are due to be delivered to residents before the end of this month (April 2009) in the nine roads that selected themselves for inclusion in the CPZ territory. There will be three separate zones. Zone 1 (Rowden, Thayers Farm and Chaffinch) on the northern side of Beckenham Road will have all-day restrictions; residents' permits here will cost £75 per year. Zones 2 & 3 (ClockHouse, Queens, Elm, Blandford & Sidney) will have midday restrictions; residents' permits here will cost £35 per year. A permit for Zone 1 will not entitle you to park in Zone 2 or Zone 3, etc. Throughout the territory, visitors' parking vouchers will cost £2 per day (saleable in books of 15, costing £30).

I agree it's taken much much longer to get this CPZ sorted out. The questionnaires were all back for analysis by mid-September 2008 and the territory designated fairly speedily. But the next stages - determining the lay-out of parking bays, agreeing on hours of operation, zoning, road signage, etc. seemed to take forever. The scheme should be fully up-and-running (with permits and vouchers issued) by June 2009. That will be about 10 months on from 12 August 2008 (the date when the Council first sent round the questionnaires). If it's any consolation, the CPZ scheme for the Copers Cope area, around New Beckenham Station, took almost twice as long to establish!

Sarah says we could have invaded a country in the time it has taken. Well, in the case of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, I believe it would have been well worth spending more time at the "consultation" stage and more time assessing the consequences and getting more allies on board instead of rushing-in on George Bush's timetable.

[Jon Clarke]

What happens if there are more permits allocated than parking spaces? Any restriction on how many permits a household can apply for?

[Reg Adams]

Interesting questions, Jon. Unless you read anything to the contrary in the Council Traffic Engineers' letter that is about to come through the letter-boxes in the nine CPZ roads:

1) I rather doubt that the Council has established a quota for the number of Residents' Permits to be issued (i.e. sold) for any particular road within the CPZ. And I doubt if there is a quota for the number of Residents' Permits to be issued for the entirety of Zone 1 or Zone 2 or Zone 3. It therefore follows that there might well be more permits issued than the number of on-street parking-spaces available.

2) Note that motor-bikes occupying an on-street parking bay will have to display a Resident's Permit (or Visitor's Voucher) – one motor-bike per bay, exactly the same terms as for three- and four-wheeled vehicles.

3) As far as I am aware, there is no upper limit on the number of Residents' Permits that can be purchased by any one household. As you can imagine, there will be some households who own four or five vehicles (e.g. couples, with several children over the age of 17) and those households will naturally want to purchase a Resident's Permit for each vehicle. Apparently, there are some schemes run by other Local Authorities with stepped charges, say £60 per year for the household's first vehicle permit; £90 for the second; £130 for the third; £180 for the fourth, and so on.

4) The question of multiple permits arose during some of the discussions I participated in concerning the CPZ scheme. I think the approach will be that if it seems that a particular household is trying to purchase an "unreasonable number" of Permits (and/or Visitors' Vouchers), having regard to the number of occupants at that property (according to the Electoral Roll) then a "proper examination of the case will be carried out in order to find out if someone is attempting to abuse the system."

5) The objective will be to discourage anyone thinking of setting-up a trading mechanism for ClockHouse parking permits/vouchers. But I can see that it might be difficult to monitor and prevent!

REG ADAMS (LibDem Cllr, ClockHouse Ward)